posted at 4:01 pm on September 27, 2012 by Erika Johnsen

Speaking in front of the United Nations in New York on Thursday afternoon, Israeli Prime Minister eschewed a lot of the normal platitudinous dithering that goes on in that august body and instead struck a more “peace through strength”-tone in laying out the Iranian nuclear situation. He got quite specific in defining the dangers that Iran’s activities present to the world at large, even using an idiot-proof chart and everything:

“The red line must be drawn on Iran’s nuclear enrichment program,” Netanyahu said. “I believe that faced with a clear red line, Iran will back down.” …

“Throughout our history the Jewish people have overcome all the tyrants who sought our destruction,” he said. “The Jewish people have come home. We will never be uprooted again.” …

“Make no mistake: a nuclear-armed Iran is not a challenge that can be contained,” Obama said. “It would threaten the elimination of Israel, the security of Gulf nations, and the stability of the global economy. It risks triggering a nuclear-arms race in the region, and the unraveling of the non-proliferation treaty. That’s why a coalition of countries is holding the Iranian government accountable. And that’s why the United States will do what we must to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.”

The Obama administration has steadily resisted publicly announcing a precise “red line” on Iran’s nuke program, insisting that they’ve been standing tough with diplomacy and sanctions, but Netanyahu was plenty frank in relaying that he doesn’t think that’s quite good enough. It’s too bad President Obama didn’t have any time to discuss all this “noise” with Netanyahu while he’s in the country this week — but I’m sure he’ll be looking forward to the president’s phone call on Friday.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Comments

I would just like to point out that 99.9% of you in this thread are arguing FOR the foreign policy of progressivism. Interventionism is the foreign policy of Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Franklin Roosevelt.

“If a nation shows that it knows how to act with reasonable efficiency and decency in social and political matters; if it keeps order and pays its obligations, it need fear no interference from the United States. Chronic wrongdoing, or an impotence which results in a general loosening of the ties of civilized society, may in America as elsewhere ultimately require intervention by some civilized nation and in the Western Hemisphere the adherence of the United States to the Monroe Doctrine may force the United States, however reluctantly, in flagrant cases of such wrongdoing or impotence, exercise an international police power.” – Theodore Roosevelt

Commonly known as the Roosevelt Corollary.

You’re familiar with the big stick policy, right? Examples would be our interventionism in the Caribbean, such as the Dominican Republic. Teddy ignored the Constitiution with this, and issued a new monster for the 20th century – the executive order.

Wilson wanted to enter war with Germany and goaded them into attacking us. WW I.

Roosevelt also desired war, believing and propgrogating the common economic fallacy that war would boost the economy, and so intervened and waged economic war against Japan. WW II.

Not sure about TR, but for Mr. Wilson it seems that WWI is an outstanding example; in fact, it’s probably the best example of a useless war (definitely a foreign intervention) that I can think of (and 116,000 Americans died in the conflict).

Then, of course, there’s FDR’s naval efforts to block oil supplies to Japan — blocking raw materials to a country via one’s navy certainly seems like a foreign intervention to me. And, of course, FDR’s invention of “leasing” ships to certain countries whilst still claiming to be neutral should of course be considered an intervention.

I think you mean your jaw is on the ground due to your ignorance. Go right ahead and keep taking the side of Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt. Nothing like a conservative defending progressivism.

Tell me if this sounds familiar: “During his tenure as president, Woodrow Wilson encouraged Americans to look beyond their economic interests and to define and set foreign policy in terms of ideals, morality, and the spread of democracy abroad.”

None of his claims, which amount to “Deterrence won’t work with Iran” are just that — claims w/nothing backing them up. He is correct that a nuclear Iran will probably trigger a regional arms, but this means those countries will be forced to live together or die together. If a Iran crosses the red line, a strike against Iran will only delay them getting a weapon, and once they do, they’ll be 10x, at least, as likely to preemptively use it had the west not struck first.

He is correct that a nuclear Iran will probably trigger a regional arms race, but this means those countries will be forced to live together or die together.

That was an Orwellian thing for him to say. There already is a regional arms race. Iran is surrounded by nukes and has two countries engaged in surreptitious warfare against her who also speak of openly attacking her. Of course they’re seeking a means to protect themselves.